I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[1robin]

I am always up for a reasoned sensible discussion.

It should not take much time, the concepts I expressed
are simple.

If it is your take that anyone has proved that abio
is impossible, that is not a biggie to see how that
is not at all what has happened.

All that has been shown is that it has so far
not been done.

If you agree, then there is not much more to say
on that.

Ok I will go back and respond to your last post.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry but as I stated in post #542 we are done for now in this thread.

As I noted, your documented behavior in response to having your challenge met (i.e., doing everything except addressing the information) speaks for itself.

 

[1robin]

It is up to you what you want to believe of course.

Ok.

But backing it with a mistaken idea is questionable.

First you must show that occurred.

Again that is exactly what science has proven.

Exactly what is it that you claim science has proven? It definitely isn't abiogenesis. They have failed every single time to prove that. And even if they finally do produce life that would only show that intelligence was necessary.

Not so!

Not so!, what exactly?

First, of course we have to point out that science does
not prove things. Sometimes you can disprove thigns
with science.

What?

A failure to produce life in a lab does not disprove
the possibility of doing it, still less the possibility that
it happened naturally under unknown conditions

Well failure certainly doesn't help.

What has been demonstrated is that nothing that has
been tried will work.

And until they do they should shut up.

You might want to start a business. Edison might
want to make a light bulb.

After 5 tries that all failed, has it been proven that
you cannot run a business, nor Edison make a light
bulb?

Id say it means that nothing you or he
have tried will work.

I'd be interested if you see what I am saying.

I know what you saying but it is very unpersuasive. Basically your saying the absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence but I never said otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But abiogenesis claims that this happen as the result of completely natural means. That is what I am denying.

Actually abiogenesis does not "claim" anything. Abiognesis is simply the observation that at one point there was life on this planet and there later there was. Even creationists believe in a form of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is life from non-life. Though creationists will claim nonsense about a "living-God" that is merely an equivocation fallacy. God is not alive in the same sense as an amoeba is. Amoebas can did. Can you god die?

 

[Subduction Zone]

First you must show that occurred.

That has been done many times. That you do not understand it does not mean that has not happened.

 

[1robin]

Actually they haven't. Where do you get this idea from? Nobody so far as I know, has ever been so stupid as to try to recreate life in the lab from inorganic starting materials. Any biochemist knows that is far too complex a task to be feasible. All people have done is to model certain elements of what could have been the process.

They have tried many times but the most famous experiment was Miller Urey.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...y_experiment&usg=AOvVaw1jb59B1HLYGqerz0kYOSkP

Your comment about abiogenesis seems to be a bit garbled: " based on whether the scientists happens to be a materialism" ??. Finger trouble?.

Yes I have so many discussions going on I am typing way too fast and spell check gainks me at times. Materialism should have been materialist.

But I think I know what you are saying and it is wrong. I have already gone to the trouble of explaining to you how it is possible to reconcile the biblical idea of creation with a world that operates according to natural processes. I had thought from your reaction that you had understood that. Thousands of scientists are religious believers, after all. What you are doing is to confuse methodological naturalism, which is part of the way science is done, with philosophical materialism or physicalism, which is the worldview that the tangible physical world is all there is.

We have moved from biblical microevolution to a discussion about abiogenesis. My view of abiogenesis is simply that it is improbable and that it has never observed or proven.

Understand this: science is the search for explanations of nature in terms of nature. You can perfectly well study nature in this way and still believe there is more to the world and our existence than mere molecules.

I have a degree in math and work in a DOD weapons lab so I understand how science works. In fact in another debate I have going on I have already made this point myself. I keep my biblical claims in a theological context and my scientific claims in a natural science context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have tried many times but the most famous experiment was Miller Urey.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...y_experiment&usg=AOvVaw1jb59B1HLYGqerz0kYOSkP

Yes, that was the most famous because it was the best know. Another reason is because it was a very successful experiment.

Yes I have so many discussions going on I am typing way too fast and spell check gainks me at times. Materialism should have been materialist.

Instead of typing fast take your time. Answer each post the best that you can. Don't waste your time by defending when you run away.

We have moved from biblical microevolution to a discussion about abiogenesis. My view of abiogenesis is simply that it is improbable and that it has never observed or proven.

This demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of science. It can be "observed" in the fossil record. We see no life in the fossil record and then we see life. That is evidence for abiogenesis. It tells us that an abiogenic event occurred on the Earth. It does not explain it in any way bit it is the observation of abiogenesis. And your view of it being improbable is simple an argument from incredulity. A variation on the argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. It is not a valid argument against an idea.

Lastly nothing is "proven" in the sciences. Ideas are supported by evidence. We have advanced quite a bit since the Miller-Urey experiment and there may be more than one pathway to life. That means even if we find out how life may have arisen in the laboratory that does not mean that is how life arose. Do you understand that? For example for a traveler from New York to L.A. I may be able to lay out a possible route that he took, that does not mean that it was the route that he took. Focusing on abiogenesis is rather pointless at any r rate since we know that once life was here that it evolved. Even if God created the first living cell that does not negate the theory of evolution.

I have a degree in math and work in a DOD weapons lab so I understand how science works. In fact in another debate I have going on I have already made this point myself. I keep my biblical claims in a theological context and my scientific claims in a natural science context.

It appears that you do not know how science works. You keep writing posts that indicate otherwise. You claim that events have not been observed when they have been, that tells us that you do not understand what "observed" means in the sciences. You ask for "proof" when nothing, not even gravity, is "proven" in the sciences. Science is evidence based. Theories are accepted based upon the evidence for them and the predictions that can be made with them. Your point is refuted by your own posts here.

 

[Audie]

Ok.

First you must show that occurred.

Exactly what is it that you claim science has proven? It definitely isn't abiogenesis. They have failed every single time to prove that. And even if they finally do produce life that would only show that intelligence was necessary.

Not so!, what exactly?

What?

Well failure certainly doesn't help.

And until they do they should shut up.

I know what you saying but it is very unpersuasive. Basically your saying the absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence but I never said otherwise.

First you must show that occurred. (mistakes)
Ok, I did it before, but I can do it some more.

Exactly what is it that you claim science has proven


Here is your quote-
I do not believe that abiogenesis ever occurred. Again that is exactly what science has proven.

It was you,not I who claimed science proved something.

I said that science does not do proof, as have many others
here.

So there is a mistake on your part, three of them actually.

1 You mixed up my quote with yours
2 You said "science has proven" when it has done nothing of the sort
3 You said "proven" when science does not do proof.

They have failed every single time

Correct. Tho I dont know how many, rather few I think, times
it has been seriously tried.


ALL that they showed is that the things they tried did not work. As with the light bulb, many many more things that have not been tried.

I said-
First, of course we have to point out that science does
not prove things. Sometimes you can disprove thigns
with science.

To which you said.."What?"

i guess I can say it again. Science does not prove things.
Sometimes you can disprove things, like say, the idea that
the moon is made of blue cheese.

We can have a discusison, I can send you to links but,
science does not prove things. Proof is a thing for math or alcohol.

What has been demonstrated is that nothing that has
been tried will work.

And until they do they should shut up

Gracious, what an attitude!!
Regardless, I am merely trying to tell you that your notion that
science has proved abio cannot be, is mistaken.

Two reasons-science does not do proof, and, like with the light bulb, there is still much untried.

Absence of evidence, evidence of absence...

No. You said science proved abio never occurred,
pointed out why you are wrong.

Again, two reasons.

1. Science is not in the biz of doing proof.

2. As with the light bulb, a failure is not proof that it cannot be done.

super simple. dont make it hard!

Can you now see even one mistake you've made?


ETA-

sheesh, now you are contradicting yourself.

I do not believe that abiogenesis ever occurred. Again that is exactly what science has proven.

My view of abiogenesis is simply that it is improbable and that it has never observed or proven.

 

[1robin]

First you must show that occurred. (mistakes)
Ok, I did it before, but I can do it some more.

You do not know how to properly format a post do you? Would you like me to explain how to post responses? I can show you how to quote other posters if you want. If so I would like to wait until you know how to properly formulate your posts. Is that ok with you?

 

[Audie]

You do not know how to properly format a post do you? Would you like me to explain how to post responses? I can show you how to quote other posters if you want. If so I would like to wait until you know how to properly formulate your posts. Is that ok with you?

I was right the first time about "never mind".

You are not capable of admitting you made any sort of mistake.

What a cheap xxxx way to get out of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not know how to properly format a post do you? Would you like me to explain how to post responses? I can show you how to quote other posters if you want. If so I would like to wait until you know how to properly formulate your posts. Is that ok with you?

You don't seem to understand that by denying abiogenesis you even deny the creation myth of Genesis.

Abiogenesis is simply the observation that at one point there was life on the Earth and then at a later time life can be observed. That means that there was some sort of abiogensis event. It does not answer the question whether it was natural or supernatural but to date we have found explanation after explanation for events that were previously thought to be supernatural.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Let me put it another way. I regard fossils as the best evidence there is for macroevolution but I have so many other reasons to believe macroevolution has not occurred that the fossil evidence alone is not enough to sway my opinion.

What other reasons?

In this context the evidence for a murder is radically different from evidence that a fish evolved into a lizard. I could tell you what evidence you need to prove someone murdered someone but I can't think of what evidence a fossil has to have to demonstrate macroevolution.

What about a fossil with a mixture of fish and amphibian traits? What about a fish with legs?

If I don't think there is evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record I can't tell you what to look for. Its like asking me what evidence on the dark side of the moon do I think would prove who murdered JFK.

Perhaps you could describe the criteria you have used to determine that the fossil species above are not evidence for macroevolution.

No, I would except it but I can't tell you where to find it or what it looks like. It is your job to find this smoking gun not mine.

I have found the smoking gun.

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

I just thought of something you could provide. Provide strong evidence for abiogenesis. There, now you have a specific thing to provide.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

1. The bible affirms evolution within "kinds". In this case everything was a type of dog and so it is evidence for microevolution.
2. The bible suggests that macroevolution has not occurred. That means the your example does not fall into this category nor in the category of common descent.

Humans are a type of primate, as are chimps. So why do you reject common ancestry between them?

Yes you have but you still have not done as requested. I want you to find the best point made at the site you provided the link to. If what you copy and paste from that site appears to be challenging and relevant I will go to the site and read more of it, then I will respond. I am not going to waste the entire day blindly following every link I am given, that can't be done nor should it. I am willing to follow a link if those conditions are met. Heck I would be happy if you simply acknowledged that you understand my request.

I am getting discouraged having to restate my same positions over and over and over again.

I wrote it all myself, and it is a thread on this forum. If you have questions about the ERV evidence please ask them on the other thread and I will do my best to answer them.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

They have tried many times but the most famous experiment was Miller Urey.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi67cSf-fHbAhWK0FMKHcqXCZQQFggxMAI&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment&usg=AOvVaw1jb59B1HLYGqerz0kYOSkP

In which of those experiments did scientists observe a deity creating life? Why do you accept creationism when it lacks evidence, but reject abiogenesis because it lacks evidence? That seems like a double standard to me.

 

[1robin]

I was right the first time about "never mind".

You are not capable of admitting you made any sort of mistake.

What a cheap xxxx way to get out of it.

So you do not format your posts correctly, I offer to help, you start whining, sounds about right. Never mind indeed.

 

[1robin]

What other reasons?

I will give you a few reasons I doubt that abiogenesis and common descent have not occurred.

1. Symbiotic relationships.
2. The first creature to be sophisticated enough to convert energy into complexity.
3. Scientists have completely failed to produce life even in rigged experiments.
4. The sheer complexity of the earliest life forms. Single celled organisms (the first form of life) are more complex that the space shuttle.
5. The intelligence gap between us and all past forms of life.
6. Etc......ad infinitum.

If you want pick one and I will explain it in more detail.

What about a fossil with a mixture of fish and amphibian traits? What about a fish with legs?

Perhaps you could describe the criteria you have used to determine that the fossil species above are not evidence for macroevolution.

This might be evidence (though no one knows if even a single one of the creatures had any offspring what so ever) that is consistent with macroevolution it isn't persuasive enough to convince me of it. We can't agree on what happened in pickets charge 150 years ago despite having countless battle reports why do you think we know what happed millions of years ago? We can't predict weather 48 hours in advance yet you think you know what happened millions of years ago?

I have found the smoking gun.

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

So your claiming this is where you would like to draw your battle line. If so start by posting the best paragraph from that site you want me to evaluate. If I find it compelling we will limit our discussion to just what this link contains.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

If this didn't happen evolution couldn't have occurred but if you don't want to discuss the only line in the sand I could think of that is fine.

Humans are a type of primate, as are chimps. So why do you reject common ancestry between them?

Again, our arbitrary taxonomy classifications are irrelevant. Pluto did not change ontologically one bit what so ever between when it was called a planet and it being changed to dwarf planet. Labels do not mandate anything in a biological context. I can't believe you still do not get this after my pointing it out for so long.

I wrote it all myself, and it is a thread on this forum. If you have questions about the ERV evidence please ask them on the other thread and I will do my best to answer them.

Are you saying your link went to another thread and a post your wrote up at that location?

 

[Audie]

So you do not format your posts correctly, I offer to help, you start whining, sounds about right. Never mind indeed.

Uh, no. Your response was a snarky sneak out of having to admit you were wrong.

No chance in the world you will now go back and see-your words conveniently
in bold italics -and take note of where you were wrong, and admit it.

Creationists dont have it in them to ever admit they are wrong on anything, so
it was unfair of me.

" espressing contempt" and "whine" are not the same btw.

 

[1robin]

In which of those experiments did scientists observe a deity creating life? Why do you accept creationism when it lacks evidence, but reject abiogenesis because it lacks evidence? That seems like a double standard to me.

What? We are not discussing the positive case for creation. We have been discussing the negative case for materialistic macroevolution. If we were discussing creation I would have made the case for it. We can discuss creation if you want but we can't do both. Do you want to discuss what is true of biological evolution or the case for creation.

 

[1robin]

Uh, no. Your response was a snarky sneak out of having to admit you were wrong.

"contempt" and "whine" are not the same btw.

Whatever, we are done here for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? We are not discussing the positive case for creation. We have been discussing the negative case for materialistic macroevolution. If we were discussing creation I would have made the case for it. We can discuss creation if you want but we can't do both. Do you want to discuss what is true of biological evolution or the case for creation.

You have not been able to show any evidence. All you have are a series of arguments from incredulity at best. Those are logical fallacies and not valid arguments against a concept. And then you hypocritically admitted the weakness of your belief but brushed it off.

Most Christians try to be honest. Of course most Christians are not creationists. Honesty and creationism never go along. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are having such a problem with acting properly yourself.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I will give you a few reasons I doubt that abiogenesis and common descent have not occurred.

1. Symbiotic relationships.
2. The first creature to be sophisticated enough to convert energy into complexity.
3. Scientists have completely failed to produce life even in rigged experiments.
4. The sheer complexity of the earliest life forms. Single celled organisms (the first form of life) are more complex that the space shuttle.
5. The intelligence gap between us and all past forms of life.
6. Etc......ad infinitum.

You do realize that the single celled organisms we have today are the product of over 3 billion years of evolution, right? Modern bacteria in no way represent what the earliest life would look like.

If you would like to discuss one of those topics at length, I would be happy to do so. However, you seemed crunched for time so I won't impose on your limited time here. If you wanted to, I would be interested in how you figured out what the first life on Earth looked like since I am unaware of any scientist who knows the answer to that question.

This might be evidence (though no one knows if even a single one of the creatures had any offspring what so ever) that is consistent with macroevolution it isn't persuasive enough to convince me of it.

So there is no fossil evidence that would ever convince you?

So your claiming this is where you would like to draw your battle line. If so start by posting the best paragraph from that site you want me to evaluate. If I find it compelling we will limit our discussion to just what this link contains.

It is a thread that I wrote on this forum. The entire opening post is the argument.

Again, our arbitrary taxonomy classifications are irrelevant.

And yet you though the taxonomic classification of "dog" was relevant. So why is "dog" relevant but others are irrelevant?

Are you saying your link went to another thread and a post your wrote up at that location?

It is a thread on these forums. Click on it.

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans